nanog mailing list archives
Re: Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough?
From: Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2010 06:12:58 -0700
On Apr 20, 2010, at 5:40 AM, Joe Greco wrote:
In message <201004200022.o3K0M2Ba007459 () aurora sol net>, Joe Greco writes:That'd be easy if you were just starting up an ISP. What do you do with your existing customer base? If their current service includes a dynamic public IPv4 address, you can't gracefully take it away, without likey violating services T&Cs, government telco regulations etc. So you'll have to go through a formal process of getting agreement with customers to take them away.I haven't seen any such documents or regulations.People purchaced the service on the understanding that they would get a Internet address. A address behind a NAT is not a Internet address, it's a *shared* Internet address which is a very different thing.People purchase mobile Internet service and get placed behind carrier NAT. People get free Internet at hotels and are almost always behind a NAT. The terminology war is lost.
Most hotels I have stayed in recently have a "Upgrade to public IP" button which I routinely use. I have never encountered an additional charge for that public IP.
Many/most people are _already_ behind a NAT gateway.They are behind NAT44 which they deployed themselves and control the configuration of themselves. They can direct incoming traffic as they see fit. They are NOT restricted to UDP and TCP. NAT444 is a different kettle of fish. There are lots of things that you do with a NAT44 that you can't do with a NAT444. If all you do is browse the web and read email then you won't see the much of a difference. If you do anything more complicated than making outgoing queries you will see the difference.You *might* see the difference. You might not, too. And hey, just so we're clear here, I would *agree* that Internet access ought to mean an actual IP address with as little filtering, etc., as reasonable... but we're exploring what happens at exhaustion here. So I'm not interested in arguing this point; the fact of the matter is that we WILL hit exhaustion, and it's going to be a hell of an operational issue the day your subscribers cannot get an IP from the DHCP server because they're all allocated and in use.
The good news is that in IPv6, it probably will mean that again. Owen
Current thread:
- Re: Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough?, (continued)
- Re: Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough? Mark Andrews (Apr 19)
- Re: Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough? bmanning (Apr 20)
- Re: Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough? Mark Andrews (Apr 20)
- Re: Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough? bmanning (Apr 20)
- Re: Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough? Mark Smith (Apr 20)
- Re: Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough? Valdis . Kletnieks (Apr 20)
- Re: Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough? Mark Newton (Apr 20)
- Re: Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough? Mark Andrews (Apr 20)
- Re: Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough? bmanning (Apr 20)
- Re: Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough? Joe Greco (Apr 20)
- Re: Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough? Owen DeLong (Apr 20)
- Re: Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough? Mark Andrews (Apr 20)
- Re: Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough? John Levine (Apr 20)
- Re: Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough? Simon Perreault (Apr 20)
- Re: Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough? Jack Bates (Apr 20)
- Re: Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough? Owen DeLong (Apr 20)
- Re: the alleged evils of NAT, was Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough? John R. Levine (Apr 20)
- Re: the alleged evils of NAT, was Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough? Mikael Abrahamsson (Apr 20)
- Re: the alleged evils of NAT, was Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough? Eliot Lear (Apr 20)
- Re: the alleged evils of NAT, was Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough? Mark Smith (Apr 20)
- Re: the alleged evils of NAT, was Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough? Jens Link (Apr 21)